Much Ado

Do you think Shakespeare believed in the stereotypes he presented or do you feel he was attempting to teach his audience a lesson about misjudging others or about forcing people to conform to tradition?



Shakespeare's play, Much Ado About Nothing does deal with many stereotypes. For instance, Hero and Claudio are the young couple who are so innocent that they fall madly in love at the moment they see each other. I wish I could say that that happens in real life, but even a hopeless romantic like myself knows that it's a stereotype of people my age.

Dogberry is also a stereotypical character in the sense that he sounds uneducated and ignorant for a person of his class. Although Dogberry is the example that leads me to believe that Shakespeare didn't believe in these stereotypes himself. Dogberry and the watchmen, uneducated and low-class characters, are key roles in the story. The watchmen are the ones who overhear Borrachio's plan and apprehend him. Additionally, if Leonato had listened to Dogberry when he said that he had taken two into custody in a matter that might interest Leonato, he is ignored, which brings upon Hero's public slander.

I think by showing how even the most simple of people can help with important things, Shakespeare disproves the stereotypes made by his own play.

Lies lies lies!

Is lying ever ethically or morally justified?

I think so. It's such a broad topic that it's hard to say. If you're friend asks you if she looks alright, but she looks completely awful, wouldn't you tell a bit of a white lie to be less blunt? And what if you're trying to protect someone? If you're friend who your parents hate broke your mom's favorite vase, and you knew they wouldn't care if you had done it, would you lie for your friend? But then there are times when the lies can be harmful. In a criminal trial, it's completely wrong to lie about who killed whom, who shot someone, anything that could put an innocent person in jail and a convict back on the streets.

I lie. I'll admit that, but I don't lie about harmful things and I don't lie about anything that could harm my trust with other people. I may tell a friend she looks wonderful when it's maybe not her best day. I try to help my friends with fights by embellishing the details of their regret just slightly enough to make both sides realize it's completely dumb. I don't ever want my friends to have hurt feelings or low self esteem, so I tell the occasional white lie.

Benedick and Beatrice's relationship was fueled by lies to get them to admit their affection for each other, but there are many lies that could have hurt them, much like the lies about Hero that are fueled by Don John. I approve of the former, and must condemn the latter because it is not going to get you anywhere to bring down others. I think it is ethical to lie sometimes, but it all really depends on the situation.

Have a good break everyone! :)

Question Number 3!

Why do people write memoirs?

What power is there in telling our own stories?

As much as I despise writing memoirs, I must admit that they're fun to read. I think many people write memoirs so that they can show others what you can make of life. There are memoirs about climbing Mt. Everest, fighting racial discrimination, and how to deal with the deaths of loved ones. For almost any topic, there's a memoir. I think that by learning from the mistakes of others we can prosper more in our lives. We can learn from the mistakes that those who wrote the memoirs made, and we can swear to ourselves that we don't want to do what they did (or maybe you do). I at least, get those sort of lessons from memoirs.

What power do we have in telling our own stories? All stories are powerful in one way or another. Whether you're a magic boy at a magic school, or a black boy growing up being repressed, I think stories have some sort of power. Memoirs evoke a sense of who we truly are from within their tales, and I think the ability to let readers connect is very meaningful. If I can teach others to learn from my mistakes, I feel like I've accomplished something. I suppose that is the best part of writing memoirs.

Question Number Two!

What types of things does Richard "hunger" for

and what are the effects (positive and negative) of hunger?

Throughout the book, Richard has both physical hunger and mental hunger. Although his deepest desire is for the freedom to do as he pleases. Richard causes great rifts to form between him and many others because of his actions, but he also gets closer and closer to achieving his freedom.

Richard often argues that his beatings are unfair, showing his need for independence. At one time, Richard's uncle threatens to beat him, but Richard fights back. Richard's threat to slice his uncle with a razor blade is only his way of preserving the little freedom he already has. Richard tells his uncle, "'I didn't mean to hurt your feelings this morning,' I told him. 'you insist I did. Now, I'll be damned if I'm going to be beaten because of your hurt feelings'"(Wright 159). Richard wants to be independent, and make his own life, so he'll bow down to no one.

Although, Richard did not always have the freedom he longed for. I'll go back to the incident with the kitten to explain this. Richard was told early on that his parents' words were law, and that he should never disobey them. Many children who grow up like that are subservient and docile, but Richard knows, deep within, that that is not the way he wants to live. Richard takes His father's words literally, but he explains later on why he did just what he did. Mr Wright explains, "I had had my first triumph over my father. I had made him believe that I had taken his words literally. He could not punish me without risking his authority" (12). This is really when Richard gains his first taste of free life, and where his hunger begins.

Richard Wright constantly longed for freedom in his life, and he used his disestablishmentarianistic approach to life to gain the freedom he needed. Although this caused rifts, such as his uncle forbidding his family to talk to Richard, he was able to finally gain the freedom he hungered for.

Question Number One!

Is Richard a "bad" boy?

When should behavior be blamed on the person and when should it be blamed on the environment?

Richard is young when the book starts, leading him to do rash things and not understand the danger of his actions. When Richard is trying to entertain himself at the beginning of the book, he naturally is attracted to the fire (4). He was not trying to be destructive, he merely was curious, and his curiosity lead him to see if things other than the straw from the broom would burn. I can say that In this case he's really just acting like any other four year old who has not been taught the dangers of fire. The phrase "curiosity killed the cat" is not quite true when it comes to Black Boy. When Richard's father tells him to kill the kitten, one can be sure he did not mean it literally. Though Richard, being young and wanting to spite his father, takes his father's words seriously and uses a piece of rope to strangle the kitten (11). Again, Richard grew up being taught that his father's word was law, so blame cannot really be pushed upon him. Overall, I just think Richard is a product of his environment and he really takes little blame for his actions.

Wow, I wrote a lot... :) Do we have to cite the book?